The entire old polemic of Polish social-democrats against national self-determination is built upon the argument of its "infeasibility" under capitalism. As far back as 1903, in the program commission of the II Congress of the RSDLP, we Iskrists laughed at this argument and said that it repeated a caricature of Marxism from the (of sad memory) "Economists." In our theses we dwelt upon this error in particular detail, and precisely here, where the theoretical foundation of the entire dispute lies, the Polish comrades did not wish (or were unable?) to answer a single one of our arguments.

The economic impossibility of self-determination would have to be demonstrated through economic analysis, just as we demonstrate the infeasibility of a prohibition on machines or the introduction of labor money, etc. No one has even attempted to give such an analysis. No one will contend that even in a single country "as an exception" it was possible to introduce "labor money" under capitalism, just as it fell to one small country, as an exception, in the era of the most unbridled imperialism, to realize the unrealizable—national self-determination, and even without war and revolution (Norway in 1905). In general, political democracy is merely one of the possible forms of superstructure over capitalism (though theoretically for "pure" capitalism and normal). And both capitalism and imperialism, as the facts demonstrate, develop under every political form, subordinating them all to itself. Therefore, it is theoretically fundamentally incorrect to speak of the "infeasibility" of one of the forms and one of the demands of democracy.

The absence of a response from the Polish colleagues to these arguments compels us to acknowledge the discussion on this point concluded. For the sake of clarity, so to speak, we put forward the most concrete assertion that it would be "absurd" to deny the "feasibility" of the restoration of Poland now depending on the strategic and similar circumstances of the given war. There was no response!

The Polish comrades simply repeated a manifestly incorrect assertion (§ II, 1), saying: "in questions of the annexation of foreign territories, the forms of political democracy are eliminated; open violence decides... Capital will never grant the people a decision on its state boundaries..." As though "capital" could "grant the people" a choice of their officials, who serve imperialism, by the people! Or as though it were generally conceivable that large decisions on important democratic questions—say, republic instead of monarchy, militia instead of standing army—could take place without "open violence"! Subjectively the Polish comrades wish to "deepen" Marxism, but they do so quite unsuccessfully. Objectively, their phrases about infeasibility are opportunism, because it is tacitly assumed: "infeasible" without a series of revolutions, just as all democracy, all its demands in general, are infeasible under imperialism.

Only once, at the very end of § II, 1, in the discussion of Alsace, did the Polish colleagues abandon the position of "imperialist economism," approaching the questions of one of the forms of democracy with a concrete answer rather than with a general reference to "the economic." And it is precisely this approach that turned out to be incorrect! It would be "particularistic, undemocratic," they write, if the Alsatians alone, without asking the French, "imposed" upon them the annexation of Alsace to France, even though part of Alsace was inclined toward Germany and this threatened war!!! The confusion is altogether amusing: self-determination presupposes (this is obvious in itself and we particularly emphasized it in our theses) freedom of secession from the oppressing state; that annexation to a given state presupposes its consent is something one does not speak of in politics just as one does not speak in economics of the "consent" of the capitalist to receive profit or the worker to receive wages! To speak of this is absurd.

If one is to be a Marxist politician, then, speaking of Alsace, one must attack the villains of German socialism for not struggling for the freedom of Alsace to secede—attack the villains of French socialism for making peace with French bourgeoisie, which wishes forcibly to annex all of Alsace—attack both for serving the imperialism of "their own" country, fearing a separate, even if small, state; one must show how socialists, recognizing self-determination, would in a matter of weeks decide the question without violating the will of the Alsatians. To reason instead about the terrible danger that French Alsatians will "impose" themselves upon France is simply a gem.